[plug] email message formats - was Re: [plug] Urgent Sale...sorry about the repeat post

[The Thought Assassin]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Scott wrote:
> All the things you don't like are here to stay. 10 years ago the internet
> was Academics, 5 years ago it was the geeks and now it is every one.
I think you confuse "internet" and "world wide web".

> The internet and the way it is used will from here on in, cater to the
> lowest common denomenator.
I don't think it's all that bad. The lowest common denominator aren't
interested in the great majority of the 'net, they don't tend to have
enough imagination to use it as anything more than the billion-channel TV
that the traditional media tells them it is.

> Whether that is cookies or e-mail that uses that marvellous invention
> called HTML,
Oh god I hope that's sarcasm. :)

> the ppl who write the software will always be trying to make it easier.
Indeed. That is why you can still configure any(?) mail client to do
things the easy way and send plain text formatted as the RFCs decree, thus
allowing the recipient to read it easily and quickly. That is also why
mailing list software and administrators (and the more experienced users)
do their best to make sure that everything stays that easy by nudging
people in the right direction if their software is making things less easy
for the rest of the list.

> Along with easier also more problems but hey, that is the way the world
> is.
I'm not sure how these two can go together, or why they should.

> Some ppl spend more time worrying about their computer security than their
> own house. I am not saying that security isn't an issue but it shouldn't be
> a contant focus on everything you do or everything you say.
I think most people have a fair idea of how to secure their own house, so
they do what they feel needs doing and forget about it. Computers and
computer security are constantly changing, so it is something that needs
ongoing attention. It is also more complex, and as such tends to be a
complete mystery to some people, so you get the "fear of the unknown"
compounding things for people like Bret.

> The only other choice you have is to be George Bernard Shaw's "Great Man"
> and have a social revolution.
Suits me, but ITYM "unreasonable".

> The only problem with that is the people who have changed the world
> quite often really suffered for their beliefs, off the top of my head
> crucified, burned at the stake, shot, shot and imprisoned.
Yep. It's only worth it if it's likely to work. Individuals just don't
have enough control or influence to make it work these days, so I guess
Free Software and the like are the first few steps towards getting back
our independence and self-determination.

Stallman is without doubt an "unreasonable man", but within his own
domain, he has done far more than anyone else to bring about the kind of
"social revolution" the technological sphere is in need of.

-Greg Mildenhall